Legalizing internet gambling could solve WTO dispute

[JeffreyS]

The following is a press release the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling just distributed entitled, WTO Internet Gambling Ruling Could Require U.S. to Pay $100 Billion in Trade Compensation Penalties:

http://www.safeandsecureig.org/media/wtorelease2.pdf

Rather than face paying $100 billion in trade compensation, the U.S. should instead legalize Internet gambling and create a level playing field among foreign and domestic Internet gambling operators. Not to mention, it would finally give us the freedom to gamble online.

To learn more and let your elected officials know that you should be able to gamble online without government interference, please visit our website at www.safeandsecureig.org.

Jeffrey Sandman
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

[jjgold]

I do not think it will ever happen, the legal places in Nevada are the ones that stopped it with cash.

[White_Tiger]

Good thing might happen to us again. this from another site.

Online Gambling Ban Could Cost US Billions of Dollars
The Guardian reports that an online gambling ban in the US could be overturned as negotiations between Washington and Brussels over compensation have stalled.

"Lawyers for the EU are seeking compensation for the severe losses suffered by the British and European companies banned from operating in their biggest market last year, after the Bush administration cracked down on what it sees as an immoral activity.

"The companies, which saw billions wiped off their share prices after the ban, would not receive any cash and instead Brussels wants Washington to open up other areas of its services industry to European firms, such as insurance or reinsurance. But such a deal could cost the US billions of dollars and it might opt to allow overseas operators back into its market under licence."

This news comes on the heels of what many believe to be a positive outcome in a New Jersey courtroom Wednesday where the Honorable Judge Mary L. Cooper (3rd District/Trenton division) heard arguments for a temporary restraining order to halt the enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

Judge Cooper determined that "this was a case against a complicated backdrop" and would require her to review further over the coming weeks. No decision was made from the bench. However, iMEGA's legal team felt very confident after today's hearing. Independent trade organization iMEGA brought the legal action against the US, arguing that the UIGEA is "unconstitutional".

The government was less than commanding in its performance and the attorney representing the US, Jacqueline Coleman Snead, at times seemed "intimidated". She sat alone in the court room while the iMEGA team arrived with two powerful attorneys and its organization representatives.

The Honorable Judge Cooper aggressively challenged the US government and its Motion to Dismiss.

Edward J. Leyden, President of iMEGA.org, released the following statement on Wednesday.

"Based on the decision of the U.S. District Court earlier today, iMEGA eagerly awaits the action of the Honorable Mary L. Cooper and the Court.


"We agree that children and problem gamblers need protection. We know that technology is available that will accomplish this. This law -- in addition to being defective and unconstitutional -- will not provide greater protections. In fact, it will only make these groups more vulnerable.


"UIGEA passed in the waning minutes of the 109th Congress with very little input from members of Congress and is a misguided attempt to regulate content developed for the Internet. Although UIGEA is purportedly designed to limit illegal Internet gambling, it falls woefully short of having the ability to accomplish that purpose and fails the American people on a number of fronts. These regulations, if promulgated, would stifle online innovation and commerce; inadequately protect children by failing to ensure adequate safeguards; have a chilling effect on the privacy rights of individuals; and potentially lead to the loss of thousands of U.S. white collar jobs. iMEGA strongly suggests an immediate congressional review of the numerous pieces of legislation that address the issue of online gaming and recommends passage of new laws that ensure safe Internet use, protect U.S. Internet leadership and promote the Internet as a bastion of innovation."

Meanwhile, European and US lawyers warned Wednesday that the WTO trade dispute between the US and Antigua (which brought the action to the WTO as a means of protecting its own burgeoning online gambling industry) posed a "systemic risk" to the credibility of the World Trade Organisation after it ruled earlier this year that America acted illegally by excluding online gaming operators from the tiny Caribbean island of Antigua.

At the same time, the White House allowed domestic operators to offer gambling over the internet and withdrew its entire $100bn gambling industry from its free trade commitments.

Raul Herrera, a Washington-based trade attorney, said the compensation merited by the EU would be a multiple of 20 or 30 times the $3.4bn of sanctions prepared by Antigua, a country with a GDP of only $1bn but home to dozens of online gaming operators that once controlled half the American market.

That would imply compensation of up to $90bn, according to the Guardian.

But the EU official said this was exaggerated. "If there's compensation it will not be cash but in the form of the US opening up its services industry or part of it, say insurance or re-insurance, to others and not just the Europeans under WTO rules. "

Jonathan Cohen, a New York-based public affairs consultant acting for EU operators, said the US legal regime was "wildly inconsistent" as it allowed online fantasy sports leagues and racecourse betting but specifically banned other services provided by European firms.

Clive Hawkswood, chief executive of the Remote Gambling Association, said the European industry suffered from outrightly protectionist measures from the US. "It is using unjustified trade barriers to stop EU operators and a proper licensing system would attract many EU operators."

----

[JC]

The following is a press release the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling just distributed entitled, WTO Internet Gambling Ruling Could Require U.S. to Pay $100 Billion in Trade Compensation Penalties:

http://www.safeandsecureig.org/media/wtorelease2.pdf

Rather than face paying $100 billion in trade compensation, the U.S. should instead legalize Internet gambling and create a level playing field among foreign and domestic Internet gambling operators. Not to mention, it would finally give us the freedom to gamble online.

To learn more and let your elected officials know that you should be able to gamble online without government interference, please visit our website at www.safeandsecureig.org.

Jeffrey Sandman
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

Mr. Sandman,

Did anyone ever tell you you are an asshole?

The Frank bill does not solve the WTO problem, yet your organization continues to spew out false claims that it does.

I tried asking you nicely the other day to stop invoking the WTO issue in your lobbying for the Frank bill yet you still continue. Does your organization have to resort to outright lies to get its point across?

The Frank bill does nothing to bring the US into compliance with the WTO. The Frank bill is anti-sports betting.

JC

[Seattle Slew]

It'll never happen. I really believe if legalizing online gambling in the U.S. would lead to world peace, the government would still oppose it.

"World peace is overrated," a high ranking official said. "This is about stopping the flow of money......blah....blah."


[QUOTE=JeffreyS;357825]Rather than face paying $100 billion in trade compensation, the U.S. should instead legalize Internet gambling and create a level playing field among foreign and domestic Internet gambling operators.

[prop]

The US should fork over the 100 billion and keep us all morally protected.

I mean, just think about all the Children

[WileOut]

I have to admit Jeffrey, I dont understand what good the Frank bill would do for sports bettors when every league would simply opt out. Maybe your promotion would be more popular in the poker forums.

[JeffreyS]

I highly recommend that you read the press release. SSIGI is not out there on its own talking about how the Frank bill can help solve the WTO dispute. The release and recent media coverage includes a number of trade experts quoted saying the same thing.

[JC]

I highly recommend that you read the press release. SSIGI is not out there on its own talking about how the Frank bill can help solve the WTO dispute. The release and recent media coverage includes a number of trade experts quoted saying the same thing.

I read it. So you got some hired gun to say it brought the US into compliance.

How can it bring the US into compliance if it allows sports opt opts, state opt outs, and forcews foreign companies to "Americanize" if they wish to access consumers in the US under the terms of the bill?

I'd love to hear your expert's answers to those questions. The Frank bill as is can't get over the sports hump let alone the others.

[JC]

I highly recommend that you read the press release. SSIGI is not out there on its own talking about how the Frank bill can help solve the WTO dispute. The release and recent media coverage includes a number of trade experts quoted saying the same thing.

I just found out your "expert" who claims the Frank bill would bring the WTO into compliance is not even a lawyer. He has a Masters and PhD. in Japanese history.

http://www.alston.com/nao_matsukata/

[BigBollocks]

Unfortunately people from both sides are so poorly read that they have no clue who the Frank bill helps and hurts.

The Frank bill hurts sports gambling far worse than where we are even today. The funny thing is that the people who should seek to get this passed are the neocons, but they don't read the fine print in order to see how this would basically put an end to any hopes of legalized sports betting.

I'd be curious what Jeffrey's agenda is, but the facts are that Frank's bill is the absolute poison pill to any hopes of legalized sports betting in America.

[atakdog]

Jeffrey: I asked generically before, now I'll ask you directly: who is behind this "safeandsecure" group? Where does the money come from? You obviously work for them, so I'd think you would know.

JC's word caries about a million times more weight around her than yours, so if you want to get anywhere you're probably best off being straight with us. You'd have a better chance if it were clearer whose axe you were grinding.

[atakdog]

Whoops, a late addition: if one is actually the public spokesperson for an organization, shouldn't one say so when posting in public forums about that organization?

(Or is it just coincidence that the org's contact for the press is a Jeff S?)

[JeffreyS]

Atakdog - Please note that at the bottom of the post, it clearly indicates who is posting the message. I'm not trying to hide anything.

JC - Nao Matsukata currently works at Alston and was the policy director under the Office of US Trade Representative Zoellick. He certainly should be considered an expert on this topic, given his hands-on experience.

Feel free to disagree on the preceived benefits of the Frank bill, but the reality is that Congressman is trying to help legalize Internet gambling - and that includes sports betting. I agree that the provision allowing the sports leagues to opt out is not ideal. We would much prefer for all sports betting to be legalized, as well as poker and other games.

Since our goal is to help fight for legalized Internet gambling, we are supporting the Frank bill because it is the best shot we have get at getting this done. If you are happy with the way things are, then I can see why you would not support the Frank bill, but we believe that it provides a thoughtful framework for moving forward. And if we can't get all sports betting included in the bill, then, you can be sure that we will continue to fight after the bills passage to get this done.

Your last question was about SSIGI funding. As stated before, we have a list of our supporters on our website. The primary organizations that fund SSIGI is the UC Group, a UK-based payment processing company, and Baker Tilly, one of the largest accounting firms in the nation. We do not represent any of the gambling operators.

I hope I addressed all of your questions. It is OK if we agree to disagree on some points, but if you believe that we should be able to gamble online without the government getting in our way, then we are fighting for the same thing.

[The HG]

I find it VERY INTERESTING that Mr. Sandman has refused to answer OR EVEN ADDRESS the first question asked of him:

Mr. Sandman,

Did anyone ever tell you you are an asshole?

No matter what happens with poker, sports gambling is a whole different animal - only anti-gambling people are anti-online poker, but all the sports authorities are strongly anti-online sports gambling as well as the anti-gambling people, and that is a huge difference.

I think the odds that in the US you will be able to safely, legally and securely bet large amounts online on pro or college sports in the next 10 years, let's say, is close to -infinity. It's really not gonna happen.

[Maledetto]

Mr. JeffreyS
He may have the credibility in many people's eyes but that still doesn't make him right. Hijacking a Cause is not right man, specially when you tell the uneducated that it's in their benefit when in reality it's in their detriment. How many countries haven't been ruined with that modus operandi? You may feel free to perceive this Bill as an advancing stepping stone into a greener pasture, and have the mindset to 'work more in the future to achieve better results', but history has shown the gvmt will fvck it's own people, and this is one way to fvck many.

There are people fighting the good fight with legit efforts for the rights of the people, please don't undermine them by association.